LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF COVID-19

The civil service may not have to worry about employment or salaries during and after the Movement Control Order (MCO).

The same may not be so for private sector employees. In fact, daily wage earners are already affected as businesses have been forced to close.

Companies may also resort to retrenchment, salary cuts and other measures.

Besides the economic consequences, a host of legal issues can arise – from contractual obligations to immigration issues such as visa renewal.

This is where the Home Ministry and the Immigration Department would want to monitor compassionately.

I do not know if the government will take the responsibility for the welfare of migrant workers or pass on the burden to the worker’s country. Besides humanitarian consideration, it may also involve international laws and trade treaties between the said nations.

The contracts of monthly wage earners may be subject to the Employment Act 1955. Issues such as retrenchment, wage cuts and forced annual leave may arise if their company is adversely affected by the MCO.

I cannot imagine the extent of the domino effect on the economic chain. The corresponding legal domino effect will see businesses trying to mitigate their legal losses.

It would certainly be tough to balance the welfare of the companies and the employees, especially when the business is adversely affected.

The financial aspect has always been a sensitive and difficult matter to handle. Hence, there may also be commercial contractual disputes ranging from the supply chain, the demand side or even ongoing or proposed joint ventures.

Some parties may use the pandemic as an excuse to get out of a contract. Some joint venture projects or terms of the contract may have to be revisited. These may require legal renegotiating or mediation.

The argument of whether Covid-19 may be considered a force majeure may also arise and would require looking into the contract document. Briefly, a force majeure clause in the contract may allow a party not to perform either the whole or part of the contract. There are many contracts without such a clause.

To continue reading, please click here.

Peace !

Former Prime Minister Najib Razak Charged - Go for Justice, Not Blood.

On 4th July, for the first time in Malaysia, an ex Prime Minister was charged.

Najib, 64, was charged with misusing his position as a government official to receive a RM42mil bribe as inducement to provide a sovereign guarantee on behalf of the Malaysian Government for a loan of RM4bil from the pension fund Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP) to SRC International Sdn Bhd.

He also faces three other charges of criminal breach of trust (CBT) in his capacity as Prime Minister, Finance Minister and Advisor Emeritus of SRC International, in which he was entrusted with the RM4bil.

Read more at Star online 


Whenever a politician is charged or involved in a case, it is bound to attract attention and become sensational. We must not, however, forget that rule of law is paramount for a Nation in the long run. 

I have written many times before that we must always allow the court process to take its due course regardless of who is being charged.  In our legal system, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.  Hence, the media and the rest should respect this principle of law. 

As a lawyer I have seen many times, those who flaunt this principle end up having themselves or someone they know become a victim in the future. So the Rakyat should safeguard this principle.

Since Najib is innocent until proven guilty, he ought to be given the respect that is due to him as an ex Prime Minister.  

I have confidence in our judicial system. Now is no longer and should not be politics but the administration of justice.  

Salam.

An Outrageous Story From A Court

By GK Ganesan

Malaysia is a multi racial country that practices common law.  Three races have substantial populations: the Malays, the Chinese and Indians.  The official language is Malay, although English is allowed in courts.  Most workmen are not fluent in Malay, well at least, not back in 1994, when our story takes place. 

I had been in practice when I was sent off to conduct a civil trial at the magistrate’s court.  So, I rush to court all ready for trial, and am told that the magistrate had taken ill.  So the next thing to do is to get another date, for trial.  So we pull our diaries out.  The court clerk says: ‘No can do.  You have to get a date from the other Relief Magistrate next door’. Off we all troop to the next court. 

It is a traffic court, and as usual, packed.  The lawyers from my court add to the crush. The magistrate is a young, bleary-eyed lady.  We can gather that she must have been up all night, possibly looking after the baby. Someone rises and says, ‘Your Honour, we need to get another date for all the postponed cases’.  The magistrate eyes flick up. ‘Not until I finish this court’s list of case. So all of you have to wait’. Despair is written on our faces, but we wait. I had never been in a traffic court.  But I heard that they could send you to chokey or fine you a large sum.  So I get to watch how traffic offences are dealt with. 

To read further, please click here

————————————————————————————
GK Ganesan is a senior advocate and solicitor practicing in Kuala Lumpur.

Lawyer Tommy Thomas for Attorney General ???

Does the Attorney general need to be a Malay or a Muslim ? Does he have to advise on Syariah law ?

 by GK Ganesan Kasinathan
[03 June 2018]

The nation is trundling towards a calamitous constitutional misunderstanding. Someone has to do something about it and set matters straight.

Let us identify what is happening.

A debate has begun to rage. It concerns the identity of the person who should be the next Attorney General. It is about constitutional provisions regarding what characteristics the Attorney General should have—and whether the current nominee, Mr. Tommy Thomas has them.

Two conflicting ideas

At the heart of the debate are two conflicting statements: the first is the altruistic proposition that certain quarters ‘have no objection at all to a non-Malay being nominated as AG.’ The second is an opposite argument. It is that the AG should be ‘in a position to advise the palace on Syariah matters.’ And the third proposition, being a conclusionary one, is the argument ‘... that therefore a judge, or a retired judge of the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court ought to be appointed as AG.’

These arguments are deeply flawed. Here are the reasons:

These arguments have no constitutional basis at all. In fact, the Federal Constitution says the opposite. Why is that?

The rakyat should be allowed to interpret the Constitution

The rakyat should take part in this debate. They should look at the Constitution and inform themselves of the important aspects of this confusion. They should be taught to interpret the Constitution. It is their right. Lawyers should not be the only ones telling people what the law is.

So let us look at the Constitution.

The starting point is Article 145.

Answer to the claim AG ‘must advise on Syariah law.’

The first and most important opposition to the Administration — and Mahathir — comes from the argument that the ‘AG must be able to advise the King on Syariah matters’. This demand contradicts Constitutional provisions.

This is because the Constitution exempts the AG from such a requirement. You will understand this readily, because the relevant part of Article 145(2), states: -

‘145(2): It shall be the duty of the [AG] to advise the [King] or the Cabinet or any Minister upon... legal matters, and to perform... duties of a legal character,... and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

So what it says here is that the AG must discharge the duties that the Constitution asks him to. What power does the Constitution give him? That is explained by Art 145(3). It states: -

‘145(3): The [AG] shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.’

Clause 3 prohibits the AG from dealing with proceedings before Syariah Courts and Military Courts. As far as Syariah matters are concerned the AG has no role.

No one would disagree that the King must have the very best Syariah advisor—an expert. Were previous AGs experts on Syariah Law? Was Gani Patail an expert on Syariah law? Was Apandi? How come no one objected then?

So how can the AG be now compelled to perform a duty — or exercise a power — that the Constitution has taken away from him? Why is the AG now being asked to advise on something that the Constitution tells him is none of his business?

The person to advise the King on Syariah law cannot be a retired judge.

The fifth argument is that the nominee for the AG ‘must be either an existing or a retired Federal Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge; for, that way he can render legal advise on Syariah matters’.
This argument is a non-starter.

Again there is a clear instruction from the Constitution on this.

Apart from informing the AG what matters over which the AG has powers to act on, the Constitution goes one step further. Secular courts are non-Syariah courts: i.e. the Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Courts: [Article 121 defines the secular courts].

The Constitution expressly removes from all secular courts any power that is only a Syariah Court can exercise. Clause (1A) says:-

‘The courts referred to in Clause (1) [read, ‘secular courts’] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.’

The Syariah judicial system works under a different set of laws. They have their own courts, their own judges, and their own lawyers. They are independent of the Judiciary. Therefore if Syariah law advice is needed, their Highnesses have ample Syariah resources at their disposal.

If so, how can candidates be chosen from the retired or existing list of the secular Federal Court or the Court of Appeal judges? From them have been removed the power to deal with Syariah matters. It stands to reason that they, no matter what race or religion they profess, would have had no formal legal training on Syariah law at all. So why ask to choose from a group who possess no Syariah knowledge at all?

So the argument that the AG ‘must be able to advise on Syariah matters’ argument is a red fish! It is simply not true.

What qualities must a candidate for an AG have?

The next question to ask oneself is, who can be appointed as the AG? Article 145(1) answers the question in this way: -

‘145(1): The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’
Note the phrase, ‘a person qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court’.

Who is that? That is explained in Article 123.

 It prescribes that a nominee for an AG must be (a) a citizen and (b) for the last 10 years before his appointment he shall have been ‘an advocate’; or ‘a member of the Judicial and Legal service’ (this differs from judges in the Courts - do not confuse them as one), or a mixture of both. It does not mean he must be a Federal Court or Court of Appeal Judge. He must only be one who is ‘qualified to be’ one.

From which pool would you choose your AG, given the choice?

As a matter of choice where would you choose the AG to come from?

Let us examine the pool of resources available to the Prime Minister.

Suppose there are about 1,800 lawyers in the AG’s Chambers [AGC]: that is about right. Suppose we assume that at least 500 AGC lawyers in AGC have crossed the ‘10 year practice’ mark (the numbers could be far lower]. Then at least 500 persons qualify to be the AG.

Now, the Malaysian Bar has ten times more lawyers than the AGC. It had, at the latest count, over 18,000 members. Of that number [I extrapolate] there are over 9,000 lawyers who qualify under this Art 123 — they have crossed the ‘10 years of continued practice’ requirement. They are all citizens.
Go now to the judiciary as a source. If you add the total number of judges in the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal that does not cross 45. A great proportion of those judges are from the AG’s Chambers: some say as high as 90%.

As a matter of choice, where would you choose the AG from? From the largest pool of 9,00 members, or a lesser pool of 500 lawyers from AG’s chambers, or from a smaller pool of 45 judges from the Judiciary— the latter of which is already under attack?

Equality of all candidates not matter of race

The sixth point is, the Constitution, which upholds equality as its central core (read Article 8 of the Constitution), does not prevent a non-Malay from being appointed an AG. If our forefathers thought it necessary, they would have inserted that proscription into the Constitution. Had they done it, that would have been against all known conventions of human rights. They have not. Our forebears were reasonable people. They saw this issue and catered for it. The framers of the Constitution were men of great foresight. So why manipulate that intent by specious arguments of non-existent ‘conventions,’ conventions which are against human rights?

So there is no racial restriction in the Constitution. So that argument too goes out of the window.

The King ‘shall appoint’

Clause (1) of Article 145 states that His Majesty the King ‘shall’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint as AG a person proposed by the Prime Minister.

This is what it says: -

‘145(1): The yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’
Note the word, ‘shall’. It is mandatory.

The binding nature of the Prime Minister’s proposal is buttressed by an explanatory clause in Art. 40(1A): It says:-

‘In in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.’

The phrase ‘shall accept and act in accordance with such advice’ points to a mandatory requirement. There is a reason for this. The functioning of a valid government cannot be stultified by delay.
The Manifesto Point

The seventh argument is: ‘In appointing a non-Parliamentarian, Mahathir has departed from the Harapan manifesto that the AG shall be an MP.’

Many points answer this vacuous argument. The manifesto point is readily overcome.
Second, I have said elsewhere, the AG ought to be an MP answerable to the people, through parliament. I have suggested that the Constitution ought to be changed to effect that. The Committee for Institutional Reform is engaged in just that. Like the Council of Eminent Persons, they have had no rest. They are burning the candle at both ends. They are inundated with all manner of papers. They will suggest amendments—in good time.

But until that change is done, the law, as it stands, must be complied with. There is no countervailing argument against that. There is, fortunately, a Half-Way House solution. It is embedded into the Constitution. Art. 61 of the Constitution, which states, ‘(2) Either house of parliament may appoint as a member of any of its committees the [AG]... notwithstanding that he is not a member of that house.’ So, through this side-door, Parliament may, after it convenes, ask the AG to be appointed into its committees. The Committees may ask him to answer questions. In this way the current AG can be brought into Parliament’s deliberations. So these concerns are easily alleviated. So any allegation that ‘Harapan has breached its Manifesto’ is really no issue at all.

Parliament has a right to override the King on executive matters.

The King has executive authority over the Federation. That authority is, however, not absolute. It is subject to the dictates of Parliament: this is because Art 39 states:

‘The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the yang di- Pertuan Agong and exercisable... by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, ... but parliament may by law confer executive functions on other persons.’

The AG's appointment, under the current law, is an exercise of executive authority. If the King does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Constitution grants another route to Parliament. In matters of governance, the primacy Parliament is constitutionally entrenched. But Parliament has not been convened. That that time is not yet come. It will. But can we wait till then?
The power of the Conference of Rulers

The final argument in the opposition’s quiver is that the Conference of Rulers have an
absolute power to object to any suggestion of the Prime Minister. This is incorrect. True
it is that the Conference of Rulers have certain ‘discretionary’ powers.

Article 38 lays it out in great detail. They have a right to be consulted on certain matters. These are listed with some care: these deal with matters relating the appointment of the King, e.g., include any matter relating to the special position of the Malay rulers, the Islamic religion or the rights of Malays under Article 153 (Reservation of quotas in the services, permits etc. for Malays).

True also it is that that Art. 38(2)(c) states that the Conference of Rulers shall exercise its functions of consultation by —

‘... consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference’.

Some argue that Clause(6) gives the Conference of Rulers the right of carte blanche— blank cheque; that that it is ‘an absolute right’. This is what the relevant part of Clause(6) says —

‘... the members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say... (c) consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference;

In constitutional theory, the personal prerogative of the monarch is said to contradict democracy.
On a proper reading of Clause 6, this personal power is not absolute. First, much of the strength of these prerogative power are diluted by constitutional principles. Second, other clauses in the Constitution severely limit that power. Third, the ‘right to consultation’ cannot mean an ‘absolute right to refuse.’ That is why the Constitution, with great care, has said, their Highnesses ‘may act in their discretion.’ This discretion is called ‘royal prerogative.’ Blackstone described it as the powers that ‘the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.’ So they are are ‘personal prerogatives.’

But the principles underlying the exercise of prerogatives have been uniformly accepted without contradiction across the world. It is for that reason such prerogatives are carefully circumscribed. The way the words in clause 6 are crafted is a call to exercise, in their Highnesses discretion, one of the most fundamental provisions of the Rule of Law: when a constitutional discretion is granted, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. So the exercise of the ‘personal prerogative’ must seek to achieve the equality principle rooted as the basic fabric of the Constitution. It must be subject to transparency and good governance. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It cannot be exploited capriciously. Such a discretion must be exercised in a way that will aid democracy and uphold the Rule of Law. The words must be construed to comply with the spirit of the Constitution and the Will of the People.

Conclusion

Parliament is not in session. Not yet. Yet someone has to carry the burden of the AG. Charges have to be filed. People have to be hauled up before the courts. The Cabinet is busy answering a hundred, perhaps a thousand urgent calls upon its time. This amidst the urgent concern that economic matters should be dealt with alacrity.

Manifesto or no, Mahathir has to stop the haemorrhage. The Cabinet cannot hang about. Time is of the essence. Mahathir has to act now.

Those who delay the appointment of the AG are doing a great disservice to the toils of an elderly patriot trying to right a wayward ship.

These detractors are playing into the hands of the pilferers who have purloined billons from our coffers. They sit pretty, smiling from their strongholds. They think nothing will come upon them so long as they keep raising one constitutional crises after another, and trigger as much unease and delay as possible. That is why they are delaying the appointment of the AG. They wish to feel safe. They think the GE 14 is a pyrrhic victory. They feel they are untouchable.

They must be stopped.

As a nation we cannot sit idly by, while these detractors stultify the rakyat’s hard-won victory.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GK Ganesan Kasinathan is a senior advocate  and solicitor practicing in Kuala Lumpur.

Raperas are more urgently needed now !

I have spoken and written many articles over the years where I tried to provoke the Rakyat into taking responsibility for the well being of the Nation.  I was deeply concerned that the general rakyat who are generally good and decent people were illusioned that they are helpless in shaping the destiny of the Nation.

Whatever the impetus was, I am glad that the Rakyat now know that they can change the government if they are determined to. I hope that this makes the politicians realize that the Rakyat’s mindset has changed. They no longer fear the powers that the politicians wield.

I would like to remind the Rakyat that while the Rakyat’s mindset and imagination with regards to politics may have changed, they must remember one thing - power still has a druggish effect on the politicians and their servants.  Hence, they must not assume that just because the baton has been passed to the member of parliaments and state assemblymen on the other side of the fence, all must necessarily be well - they are still politicians.

Hence, our focus should still remain the same - we want a stable, peaceful country where each of us and our children have the opportunity to prosper based on the efforts that we put into life. Every Malaysian has a right to feel safe, useful, appreciated as a citizen with a sense of belonging and respected as a human being.

While the some or most of the Rakyat may still be caught up with the elections that have ended, the Raperas must put on their thinking caps while being balanced by their compassionate hearts.

While some or most of the Rakyat may think that their responsibility has ended by casting their votes, Raperas must know that duties and responsibilities to ensure that this Nation progresses comprehensively continues. Raperas must be ever vigilant.

Believe me when I say this: most people are unable to free themselves from vested interests that may actually run counter to national interests. Do not for a second think that a change of government automatically means that human nature itself has changed.

While we must give the trust, the benefit of doubt and support the government of the day, the Rapera must be vigilant of the human nature which may only want to act in its own interests.

Let us together unite, as Malaysians, to ensure that the key institutions in our country are strengthened not to act against ordinary citizens but to empower them so that they are protected and assisted in their quest to contribute in making this nation greater.

I pray that we have a great journey ahead.

Peace !

What is Islamic law?

It may sound ironical to ask the question what is “Islamic law” in the 21st century when it is generally thought that the body of what constitutes Islamic law has already been crystallised and settled.

If indeed it has crystallised into a recognisable and unchangeable body, then it is logical that there would only be one universal Islamic law. However, an observation of Islamic law between various countries and even between various states in Malaysia would evidence the fact that the laws are not uniform.

It would seem that what is Islamic law is still developing, in a state of flux and diverse. Shariah, on the other hand is a separate concept altogether.

Every Muslim would agree that Islam is a simple religion. The pillars of Islam are said to be only five that is, declaration of faith or the syahadah, the daily five times prayer, fasting in the month of Ramadan, payment of the zakat and the performance of the pilgrimage by those who can afford it.

However, Islam is seen not only as a religion in the typical sense but also as way of life that is complete and encompasses every aspect of our life.

In other words, Muslims believe and accept that Islam provides the necessary guidance and imposes certain obligatory behaviour in order to achieve the pleasure of God in this life and the next.

It is this belief that has lead the scholars of Islam to discern principles, precepts and law affecting life from the scriptures and the Sunnah of the Rasul.

Thus, began the role of the jurists or scholars of law in interpreting and developing various legal, social, economic and religious laws, conducts of behaviour and so on for the Muslim. These active role of the jurists began some many decades after the passing of the prophet.

I believe they reflected the intellectual response to the needs of a growing civilisation to derive various legal principles and codes of conduct necessary to create an orderly society consistent with the understood commandments of Allah in the Quran and the injunctions of the Sunnah.

It is from such need and environment that the development of usul al fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence took place.

In Islamic jurisprudence history, the al madhahib or schools of law that became famous are the Hanafite, the Malikite, the Shafi- ite and the Hanbalite though there were also other schools in the history of Muslim jurisprudence.

It is important to pause at this stage to reflect and note that prior to the development of these schools of jurisprudence, the primary source then for Muslims was simply the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet.

With the development of the schools of jurisprudence, therefore, the primary sources of Islamic law expanded to become the Quran, Sunnah, Ijma’ (consensus of the jurists) and Qias (judgement upon juristic anology).

Later, other secondary sources of Islamic jurisprudence were developed. Hence, there clearly was liberalisation of the sources from which Islamic jurisprudence began to expand and develop.

Any modern lawyer will appreciate this development as law is considered to be a “living creature” that develops as life and its circumstances change and develop.

However, it is worrisome whether some conservative scholars today are fully aware that no human being’s interpretation of Allah’s will can be absolute because only Allah alone is the Absolute Interpreter.

If this point is correct and properly understood then “Islamic law” as developed and developing can be relevant to contemporary situations and the very understanding of what embodies “Islamic law” can undergo fresh perspective without departing from its fundamental adherence to the Quran and most authentic Sunnah.

In the history of Muslim jurisprudence, a study and consideration of what are the objectives of the Shariah also too place. From a modern perspective, this would be an inevitable development.

The great university professor and scholar of Islam Imam Al Ghazali identified five essentials of the maqasid or the objectives of Syariah namely, preservation of religion, human life, the faculty of reason, progeny and material wealth.

As to whether or not the objectives or the maqasid should be limited to five is a subject of vigorous debate among the scholars.

Later scholars have added on to these five for example, the attainment of justice. This debate is understandable and in fact encouraging because life is constantly evolving with new experiences, new sets of circumstances, higher levels of knowledge, information and technology and discovery of new facts.

Hence, the perception and understanding of life today cannot be limited to the experiences and perception of life by previous scholars alone.

After all, Muslims believe that the law giver is Allah and any scholar cannot have a claim to monopoly of interpreting Allah’s intent, however knowledgeable he may be acclaimed to be.

It can, therefore, be seen from the discussion that “Islamic law” is in a state of development as is the case with many other aspects related to Muslim thinking such as political Islam, Islamic economics and so on.

The field of Islamic law and jurisprudence has become a complex discipline and Muslims must be careful that the legalistic aspect of Islam does not overshadow the spiritual and moral aspect of the religion such that it stifles faith or creativity of the individual Muslim in particular and the society in general.

In the context of Malaysia, as a Muslim, it is my hope that contemporary Muslim scholars maintain an open mind within the principles of the Quran and the most authentic Sunnah when they discuss and try to apply the Islamic law as developed by classical jurists who, without doubt has made great and laudable efforts.

There is sufficient evidence in Muslim jurisprudence history that the classical jurists never claimed their interpretations and their views to be beyond criticism or rejection if it is not consistent with the Quran, most authentic Sunnah or not relevant to the times.

In this regard it may be helpful to realign our Muslim outlook, for example, to evaluate whether some of the legislation that has been passed by our Parliament are in fact consistent with the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence and hence “Islamic”.

This may be a better and useful approach than trying to impose classical formulation of laws in contemporary settings which are different.

If my argument is correct, this may lead to a more holistic understanding of what Shariah is unlike the current trend that what is defined as “shariah laws” are the only ones that are “shariah.” With this approach, probably large segments of what is now classified as “civil laws” may qualify as “shariah.”

I opine that the government’s effort to introduce the idea of Shariah compliance is a step towards this direction in the long run.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/what-is-islamic-law-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ypBpogXI.dpuf

What is a ‘just’ justice system?

IT is pointless to call a system a justice system if it is not just. If that is the case, then it is merely oppression by powerful institutions.

There are several features that most of us can agree that a just justice system must have. It is often said that the most pivotal part of the justice system is the administration of justice by the courts of law.

Firstly, it must be accessible to everyone in the country regardless of income levels, status, religion, ethnicity and even nationality. Every citizen and anyone resident in the country, including tourists, should be able to go to the courts to seek justice. The doors of justice must open to everyone without discrimination.

Secondly, justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. The fashionable word today is “transparency”. This involves many things. The court proceedings should be public and the contestants in the case should be given liberty to chose the lawyers of their preference.

Reasonable time should be given to the litigants or the accused to prepare their case and mere administrative expediency should never be used to hurry cases.

At the same time, justice should not be delayed too. The judge must conduct himself in an impartial manner and should be careful that his judicial behaviour does not give a perception of prejudice. The Rules of Court 2012, the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code help to ensure that justice is seen to be done.

Thirdly, the judges must be people of high integrity, intelligent, patient and compassionate. They must have a good grasp of the law and the ability to understand facts.

They must decide in accordance with the law and should give reasons for their judgments as concisely and as clearly as possible. Grounds of judgments are important because, among other things, it will reflect upon our court’s ability to arrive at a just decision on a particular case.

Fourthly, there must be mechanisms put in place to ensure that litigants or even the prosecution do not abuse the legal process to oppress other people. In civil cases, there are various mechanisms by which a baseless suit can be struck out through Order 18 Rule 19(1), Order 14A or even the inherent powers of the courts as provided for under the Rules of Court.

In criminal cases, there is a recourse for malicious prosecution and defective criminal charges may be struck out.

Fifthly, access to justice should be made affordable to the average citizen and to those in the low incomes bracket. I believe that the duty to dispense justice is a divine duty and hence the society should ensure that justice is affordable to those who need them.

In our country, while we do have legal aid bureaus and so on, I feel that much more could be done to lower the cost that has to be incurred by the poorer sections of the community. It has always bothered me when I think of the possibility that many of those accused, who may have been innocent, plead guilty because they are unable to afford lawyers to represent them.

I also feel that magistrates and Sessions Court judges should probably be more compassionate and patient with accused persons who are not represented by lawyers. I am not saying that the current crop of judges are not compassionate but I am merely reemphasising the point.

To me, I am always mindful that we are dealing with human beings with similar fears and hopes. I am of course not talking about the hardcore criminals but people like illegal immigrants, first time youthful offenders who may have slipped their way and such.

Sixthly, in criminal cases, the principle of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld by the courts. This is one area where I feel that sufficient attention has not been given, possibly due to various practical constraints and other reasons.

I am humbly of the view that this principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is largely compromised when a bail that is excessive relative to the ability of the accused to raise is set. The primary function of bail should always be to sufficiently secure the attendance of the accused at the trial.

When a bail is set too high, and the accused is unable to raise it, he is often remanded together with other prisoners. When this happens, even before he is found guilty he has already lost his liberty, has to live under deplorable conditions in the remand cell and suffer psychological consequences. With respect, this does not augur well for the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Seventhly, there should be uniformity and consistency in sentencing. Crimes under like circumstances should attract like punishments. Wide disparities in sentencing will not only upset the public but may also result in loss of confidence with the justice system.

A person stealing RM200 and a person stealing RM1 million should not receive the same punishment. In fact, a person charged for the theft of RM200, there may be valid reasons not to punish him with a custodial sentence.

While the judges ought to be firm in sentencing they should also exercise compassion based on the circumstances and facts of the case before them. Justice and revenge are two distinct things altogether and a harsh sentence need not necessarily be a good thing in certain circumstances.

Eighth, the courts should be mindful of a sociological fact, namely that social cohesion is often achieved through common values, morals and culture of the society. Courts which ignore this will inevitably invite the wrath of the people and the people themselves may lose confidence in the justice system.

Ninth but not the least, the law itself must be flexible to adapt to changing social and technological circumstances of the times. If the laws do not adapt, then it will be difficult for judges to dispense justice in accordance with the needs of the times. Judges, after all, are generally tied to the laws passed by parliament.

I would argue that our civil law courts comply largely with the features discussed above. Our country is blessed that we generally have a fair and just justice system in the civil courts and we should be able to tweak it to make it even better.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement which encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/what-is-a-just-justice-system-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.duKITyqp.dpuf

Managing the judge

SEPTEMBER 26 — I often advise young litigation lawyers to know who the judges they are appearing before are and, if possible, to observe some of the trials they are presiding over. Talking to a few seniors about the conduct and behaviour of the judges in trials and hearings is equally important. Different lawyers may have different experiences with the same judge.

Being humans, no two judges are alike. Some judges make it a total pleasure to appear before them right from case management to conclusion of trial. These judges are friendly, courteous, systematic and understanding of the constraints litigation lawyers face. Some other judges may be considered as difficult for various reasons. There are also judges who are mostly silent on the bench. You will not know what they are thinking while some others, you wish they will not speak so much. All this is normal as human beings are prone to idiosyncrasies, prejudices and making mistakes.

If the lawyer has never appeared before a certain judge, I find case managements are a good time to understand the kind of judge you will be facing. I believe judges also use the same time to assess the lawyers. It is like some legal “dating” before the trial begins.

It is an accepted principle in the legal process that it is possible for a judge to make mistakes in evaluating evidence and therefore, make the wrong decision. Hence, the appeal process. This is common in litigation.

The litigation lawyer has the duty of advancing his client’s interest and legal position. Sometimes, you may be faced with a difficult judge whom you find to be interfering too much with your cross- examination, for example. Trials by nature can be quite stressful and it is possible for us to get carried away by emotions. It is always helpful to remain calm as it is when you are calm you are able to formulate the correct sentences and remain focused on your client’s interest. If you feel the interference is unwarranted, it is important you respectfully get everything on record so that on appeal, you will appear courteous, sincere and reasonable.

It is critical that litigation lawyers remain professional and courteous even when they may be annoyed as succumbing to annoyance may worsen the situation. While it is critical the trial lawyer should hold his ground on matters that concern the interest of his client, it is pointless to argue with the judge. Quarrelling with a judge in open court is completely unprofessional and embarrassing for everyone. Judges, too, generally avoid unnecessary arguments with trial lawyers as it may diminish their own reputation.

Sometimes, during trials, it is common for lawyers and judges to get into a heated argument about the law or what is permissible under the Evidence Act. Sometimes, it may concern the nature of the question the trial lawyer wants to ask or his style of asking the question which the judge may not approve. All these are common court drama. I have experienced some wise judges stand down to let matters cool down and sometimes, invite the lawyers into chambers to discuss the matter. Judges are experts at maintaining impartiality or at least the appearance of impartiality and seasoned trial lawyers are experts at managing their emotions quickly or at least the appearance thereof.

One of the important ways of managing the judge is to come for trials prepared. The easiest way to annoy a judge is to appear before the judge unprepared or shoddily prepared for your case. In this regard, extensive pretrial preparations are important such as finding out how the judge likes the bundles or exhibits to be prepared, the witness statements to be read or deemed read and so on. Knowing the legal angle of your client’s case and also being peremptorily prepared for possible questions by the other side or even the judge is useful as this may earn the judge’s respect.

I know it is instinctive for trial lawyers, who make a living by arguing, to automatically argue or rebut a position the judge takes which is contrary to his. I find this is not a useful approach. I often advise my own legal team to never behave defensively with a judge. It is important for trial lawyers to concede when they are wrong or make a concession when it is not particularly important for their client’s case. In other words, the trial lawyer should always keep his ego carefully locked up in his briefcase.

While I have experienced one or two judges who had given me a difficult time in my early years of practice, I find it distasteful when I hear some lawyers say they lost the case because the judge does not like them. Being in practice for many years, I know this is untrue and cannot be true.

Firstly, the judge has better things to do than to invest his personal feelings in a trial lawyer. Secondly, the judge is always mindful he has to legally justify his decision and hence, the judge would not jeopardise his career to spite a lawyer.

As long as trial lawyers remember judges are human beings and that they themselves have a duty to present their case professionally and as efficiently as possible, I believe it will be a reasonably pleasant day in court notwithstanding the stress of a trial.

* Jahaberdeen is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.com

** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/managing-the-judge-jahaberdeen-mohamed-yunoos#sthash.ubzjTVKA.dpuf

Sosma, ISA, politicians and the People

When I said many times before that politicians, even the more senior ones generally lack principles and consistency many politician friends got upset with me. Many of my ordinary Rakyat friends thought I was being over dramatic . But look again at the latest.

Now you have Tun Dr Mahathir and Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and a few other seniors condemning what they see as the abuse  of Sosma by the government in the recent arrest of two figures, one of whom is closely aligned with Tun Dr Mahathir. Do you know what is the irony?

The ironies are these : - 1) all of these senior guys were part and parcel of passing the ISA and I believe Tun Dr Mahathir was not in favour of abolishing ISA - correct me if I am wrong please.

2) Sosma was passed by parliament and I do not recall either Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who then was enjoying the status of DPM opposing it or making any USEFUL comments on its possible abuse. Silent as a church mouse.

3) when concerned citizens and bodies like Dato Ambiga and Bar Council were opposed to possible abuses of Sosma, these same political folks took no heed and labeled them as anti government. When I too opined about more check and balances on Sosma, I too was criticised by my umno "friends". So how lei, as the typical Malaysian would say?

4) I need not remind anyone of operasi lalang - shameful but brilliant political power play

5) even now I know of some politically misguided ones who want the return of ISA so as to safeguard " Malay rights " - Biar betul bro ? Kau baca Quran tak???

The lesson for you ordinary folks (like me) and so called supporters of politicians, remember this - politicians speak with forked tongue and are capable of contradictory behaviour  - so don't start worshipping them just because either they throw some bread crumbs your way or make you think that by being associated with them is a status symbol for you.

Though I am reasonably close to quite a few of so called "top guys" (ex and current)  in the country, I don't support them like a mule. I always go on issues - and some just don't like that but I am answerable to my Creator. The point is I have been mixing with politicians since I was in form three so I know that many of them are "scumbs". Some of them become very wealthy and very powerful but remain scumbs nevertheless. Hence, I could never be slaves to scumbs.

As to whether Sosma now has been abused, I can't say as the mater has yet to come to court. We have something called the rule of law, remember? So you, my dear citizens are stuck to the law that you have tacitly or overtly supported your member of parliaments to pass....live with it.

Selling souls has a price - just pray that he devil does not visit you or your loved ones, one day.

Salam/peace.

Note: as an addendum, the Muslim and Malay citizens better wake up and start looking at Syariah laws carefully as implemented before that too becomes your nightmare one day. Don't say you were not warned.

Pendekatan Berhemah dan Saintifik Menghadapi Isu Transeksual - Mufti Perlis Dato Murshid Dr Juanda Jaya

It is a complimentary boost to the image of Islam to note the compassionate and knowledge based approach taken by the Mufti of Perlis in the issue of transgenders.

I believe such an approach will bridge the widening gap between the clerics and the people..

Peace !

Justice is serious business

The reason why I have never considered becoming a Judge is because I consider it as a very heavy responsibility and that I have to be answerable direct to Allah.

I can understand that judges are human and hence prone to errors and human failings.

But a serious defect in judicial attitude is not a human failing - it is a refusal to improve oneself. Worse, if one has such a bad temperament that it affects the due administration of justice and yet the person persists in continuing to earn the salary as a judge, then it is a reflection that he/she has no honour.

A judge's position is not just another job to earn a salary.

It is not just a career for self glory.

It is a position akin almost to divine qualities where people come to seek justice and fairness.

IF judges are bad tempered, impatient, lazy or not clever, those who come before the court will suffer in their lives.

Justice must also be dispensed with compassion and the sentence must befit the crime.

Justice cannot be dispensed like producing mineral bottles from a factory. Number of files closed cannot be a KPI. Of course, justice delayed is also justice denied and hence each case must turn on its own circumstances.

We must remember that we and our families become victims or recipients of the system we ourselves create. do not ever enter into the delusion that you will be with that power forever. It will leave you and you will one day be helpless. Trust the law of nature.

It will be painful to spent the retiring years regretting the injustice that one may have caused.

Peace !

Perdebatan Hukum Hudud Di Dewan Rakyat 2014

Apa pandangan pembaca?

Ada kah isu2 yang relevan di bincang atau berkisar pada fahaman dan tetapan sarjana2 ?

Salam.

Masyarakat Muslim jangan emosi

Dua sistem kehakiman yang diguna pakai di Malaysia boleh mengancam kestabilan negara.

Pandangan berkenaan dibuat peguam, Datuk Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos yang menegaskan, pelaksanaan dwi sistem akan menimbulkan kekeliruan di kalangan masyarakat majmuk dan pelbagai agama di negara ini.

Baca selanjutnya disini - Rakyat Post

Salam !

Laws - Oppress or Protect You ?

Everyone knows and everyone had been told that laws are necessary for society to be peaceful and stable.

No reasonable person will deny that some sort of rules, regulations and laws are necessary to determine "the rules of the game" for everyone. These rules will make it clear what some or all can do and what others or all cannot do.Undeniably, there are unreasonable people among us, the age old fight between "good and evil" will forever exists so long as human beings exists. Laws protect and empower the "good" and punish, deter or eliminate the evil.

Laws therefore are very powerful tools to control human beings.

But what if the the laws are in the hands of the evil and they want to use the rules to oppress the people so that they can exist and survive. History has shown many rulers, politicians and governments that pass evil laws to oppress the people just to perpetuate the interest of the wealthy and powerful.

The people or the masses, generally are unaware of evil laws that are being passed until it affects them individually and personally by which time it is always too late.

The middle, lower income and poor people are usually too busy trying to sustain themselves in life to notice what the wealthy and powerful are doing.

What if the laws that oppress the people are further passed in the name of God or religion?

How many ordinary people will even understand that even such laws can be oppressive for they may feel ignorantly guilty if they oppose such laws? They may think or may have been indoctrinated to think that any law mentioned in the name of God must never be objected.

Through out history all governments and rulers, whether evil or good, have always passed laws in the name of the people or in the name of religion.

Can normal, ordinary, struggling people monitor and oppose bad laws?

Would they dare? Can they afford the sacrifice involved?

How many honourable and brave citizens are there to support and advocate good laws?

At the end of the day, whatever our individual circumstance, it is us and us alone that condone or object to evil laws by evil men,

The other citizens may either support us or stay far away merely hoping we will succeed. And there are other ignoble citizens who wish us to fail so that they can maintain thier status quo and income from the bad laws by the evil men.

And a Rapera's choice is just too clear.

Peace !

The Malaysian Bar Supports the Attorney General in Rejecting Draconian Preventive Detention Laws

The Malaysian Bar welcomes and supports the statement made by the Attorney General that there is no need for any new preventive detention laws to replace the repealed Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 ( “Emergency Ordinance”).

The Bar agrees with the Attorney General that it would be illogical and bizarre to have a new legislation providing for preventive detention without trial with respect to crime, when the legislation dealing with terrorism and national security, that is, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act (“SOSMA”) 2012, does not provide for such draconian measures such as preventive detention without trial.  A person held or arrested under SOSMA may only be held for a maximum of 28 days for investigation purposes, after which he must be released or charged in a court of law.

The Bar is against any proposal for new legislation that provides for detention without trial, for continuous preventive detention or renewals of such detention without trial by Ministerial order, and the use of ouster clauses that seek to exclude the right to the due process of the law and access to the courts.

Addressing the increase in the incidence of crime requires diligence, intelligence, abilities and the dedicated resolve of the police.  It is not about giving them more draconian powers.

The Emergency Ordinance was repealed in December 2011 on the initiative of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, as part of his transformation and democratic reforms for Malaysia.  The Malaysian Bar urges those parties advocating for the reintroduction of preventive detention laws to refrain from seeking to reverse and undo the work of the Prime Minister in this regard.

Christopher Leong
President
Malaysian Bar

16 July 2013

DAP Deregistered After PRU ???

Politicians are at it again - manipulating facts to gain public sympathy and VOTES and probably also to prevent the Registrar of Societies to do its job in  accordance with the law, This time, the politicians who are being naughty are from the DAP.

There was a complaint against the election of the CEC members by DAP MEMBERS themselves. The ROS has to investigate as it procedurally should. Since investigations are ongoing, the status of the CEC in the future is therefore uncertain in law. A full inquiry has to be done by ROS to determine whether there is any validity in the complaint by the DAP's members. 

At this moment, TODAY, the CEC has not been declared invalid nor has DAP been deregistered. The Election Commission (SPR) has also recognised the '"rocket" symbol and has allowed tis symbol to be used in this PRU13. NO issue on symbol! Period.

SO, any talk of DAP using another symbol to contest has no basis in law but purely an election tactic to garner sympathy votes and to confuse the voters. It is also aimed to politically associate ROS with BN so as to achieve various objectives - including  to pressure ROS not to act on the complaints by the DAP. I think we should stop having different sets of laws for politicians regardless of from which political party they come from.

It is shameful to use these tactics to trick the ignorant sections of the public to vote for DAP. It surely sounds like dirty politics.

Lets assume that investigations finally show that the CEC was not elected in accordance with the law. There are several possibilities. Lets assume the "worst" possibility - DAP is deregistered (which I doubt). If DAP is deregistered  will it affect the status of the DAP candidates who may have won in PRU13? 

The answer is: NO ! Recall that UMNO was once deregistered and it did not affect the status of the UMNO MPs and Aduns. They still remain as valid members of Parliament and State Assemblies. Let us not forget that independents do not stand on the platform of any political parties. There is no legal prerequisite that an election candidate must belong to a political party - any solo goreng pisang seller also can be a candidate.

Peace !

Tidak Perlu Lah Keluar Untuk Berkumpul Bagi 901 !!!

Amat menyedihkan bahawa politik begitu berleluasa dalam Negara kita sehingga dirancang untuk sampai keserambi Mahkamah.

Pada 9.1.2012, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, setelah berjalannya suatu perbicaraan yang panjang akan memutuskan samada seorang tertuduh yang terkemuka dalam Negara ini salah atau tidak salah berkaitan dengan satu pertuduhan jenayah iaitu meliwat sipengadu dalam kes tersebut. Bagi mereka yang sering ke Mahkamah, ini adalah satu proses yang amat lazim dimana proses keadilan berjalan setiap hari bagi menegakkan kedaulatan undang-undang seperti yang termaktub didalam Rukun Negara.

Tidak pernah kita dengar dimana orang-orang yang dituduh diMahkamah disertai dengan perhimpunan oleh penyokong-penyokong mereka pada hari keputusan diberikan.

Malangnya, dirancang supaya penyokong-penyokong orang yang tuduh berkumpul beramai-ramai dikawsan diluar Mahakamah. Akibat daripada pengemuman ini, hari Isnin menjadi satu hari yang menyusahkan orang ramai. Tenaga polis terpaksa dikerahkan untuk mengambil pelbagai tindakan awalan bagi memastikan tidak berlaku sebarang kekecohan. Ini merupakan pembaziran wang rakyat. 

Sebenarnya, "kekecohan" telah pun berlaku kerana mereka yang lazim nya pergi ke Mahkamah terpaksa pergi seawal-awal 6 pagi. Itu pun, mereka tidak akan dibenarkan untuk meletak kereta dalam perkarangan Mahkamah - maka terpaksa lah peguam-peguam berjalan jauh dan membawa bag-bag mereka yang berat dengan hujah-hujah dan otoriti. Orang awam yang mempunyai kes-kes mereka juga akan disusahkan dengan kehadiran perhimpunan ini. Semua ini menggangu perjalanan proses keadilan dalam Negara dan juga menyusahkan orang ramai.

Saya menyeru supaya mereka yang pentingkan keamanan serta menghormati perjalanan proses undang-undang dalam Negara ini supaya tidak berserta sama dalam perhimpunan ini.

Jangan biarkan proses politik menganggu proses keadilan!

Salam.

Is Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak becoming a radical reformer ???

I almost could not believe my eyes when I read that PM Najib had announced that ISA and three other emergency laws will be repealed. These laws have been opposed to by civil society for years and many citizens find these laws repressive and unnecessary.

I was shocked, pleasantly though, for several reasons. The act of repealing these acts is a courageous act for any president of UMNO, the largest and the ruling dominant party. It is simple political logic that any ruling party will want to retain any laws that would give it greater power to control the people, especially those that oppose the party. Hence, for Najib to announce that these laws will be repealed makes it a radical move.

I can expect that there will be resistance from UMNO rightwingers itself and some right wing NGOs. I am sure that quite a few of former UMNO leaders may be in opposition to the move, though not directly. These are to be expected and I am sure, if Najib is serious, he expects this as well. Therefore, in this sense, he is taking a big political risk for his position and support within the party.

I have often argued for fundamental reforms (as opposed to cosmetic changes) in the democratic space and the political arena on this blog and in my talks. Removing these laws is another fundamental step forward towards restoring our country as a constitutional democracy. We should applaud and support Prime Minister Datuk Sri Najib Tun Razak in this reformist step.

If Najib is serious about the repeal of these oppressive and archaic laws, he stands as a reformist who has gone beyond partisan thinking and has the people's mental and democratic development at heart. I find it extremely tiring that politicians simply refuse to think beyond partisan lines. Najib's act here is an example for politicians to think about national interests instead of purely party interests.

Surely, the removal of these laws will liberalize further civil society and hence greater criticism of any government wrongdoing or policies will surely ensue. This is not necessary a bad thing as this is how society can mature in a democracy - healthy factual debates rather than squashing rational dissent with the law. This is  a risk that Najib is willing to take politically in the interest of democratic reforms. The ability and willingness to take this political risk also shows Najib's confidence in his efforts and policies in winning over the hearts of the people. He is prepared to be judged on his merits rather than rhetoric.

For me this is not the first time that Najib has acted radically in announcing reform orientated policies. It is no secret that I am among the earliest supporter of his 1Malaysia policy. I thought that was radical and absolutely necessary for the country. 1Malaysia policy has the potential to be a long-term all-encompassing policy for the Nation which all citizens can identify with and participate. However, I also foresaw opposition and confusion within UMNO and opposition from certain NGOs and I was right. Many may not understand but his announcement of 1Malaysia was indeed a major political risk for him within UMNO and among some Malay NGOs.

However, the majority of UMNO members have accepted this policy now. Many UMNO members are reminded that though UMNO is a Malay based party, it had since since independence worked for Malaysia irrespective of religion or race. Sure, there had been deviations somewhere along the line with UMNOputras and some UMNO warlords becoming arrogant and 'lupakan diri dan Tuhan' but things are changing back to the original position. 1Malaysia in this sense is a good tool to realign and remind members that UMNO's struggle is not just for the Malays but for all Malaysians as the UMNO song itself testifies.

1Malaysia also serves to remind UMNO members that they are largely Muslims and hence racist tendencies are unIslamic. This, hopefully will weed out some UMNO leaders who are bent on pretending to be champions of the 'Malay race' simply for self glory and enrichment. I have been sick and tired for years with the approach of these primitive UMNO leaders trying to scare the Malays that they are not hard-working, not clever and that they are a social grouping that is going extinct and hence have to be protected in all spheres of their lives ! What a cruel thing to do !!!

So, 1Malaysia policy did shake UMNO out of its comfort zone and true reforms should do just that. The president of UMNO, Najib Tun Razak was brave enough to do that. Of course 1Malaysia policy can still be 'tweaked' to make it work better but all reforms come with one brave step. Najib took that step.

Due to that one step, it was well received by most Malaysians, if not all. Of course everyone, including me, wants greater translation of 1Malaysia into reality and practice. It will take time. I have always written on this blog that though 1Malaysia is Najib's 'baby', to me, it is bigger than him. It represents the hope for the future for Malaysians and people do not easily allow their hopes to be dashed. Nor do they easily forgive those who dash their hopes.

Najib is also going to do the sane thing by reviewing the annual publishing permits under the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA). Too much discretionary powers in hands of enforcers without check and balance by the courts is a bad thing.


I do hope that these are but steps taken to further reform Malaysia so that we can become a great Nation someday.


Peace!